IMPORTANT POINTS
Power u/s 7 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 can be delegated to District Collector. Examination of the District Magistrate to prove his consent is not necessary
Recovery at the discloser of accused – formal arrest of the accused not essential.

Headnote:(a) Explosive Substances Act, 1908 – Section 7 – Sanction of Central Government – Central Government could delegate its power to District Magistrate – District Collector granting sanction by a speaking order – Sanction given by District Collector is valid. (Para 23, 25
       (2000) 1 SCC 555; (1991) 3 SCC 206; (1997) 1 SCC 682 – Relied upon
       (b) Explosive Substances Act, 1908 – Section 7 – Sanction order proven by competent person – Examination of the District Magistrate to prove his consent not necessary – Sanction is valid. (Para 29, 30)
       (c) Indian Evidence Ac, 1872 – Section 9 – Test Identification parade – Held within three weeks of arrest – Delay not inordinate – Not affecting prosecution case. (Para 31 to 34)
       (1996) 8 SCC 514; (2000) 1 SCC 471; (2003) 3 SCC 569; (2012) 6 SCC 174 – Relied upon
       (d) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 133 and illustration (b) to Section 114 – Ordinarily an approver's statement needs corroboration in material particulars – Pappu as approver implicating himself in the crime – Not making any effort to give any exculpatory statement – Speaking quite graphically about the involvement of all the accused persons – On deposition of approver Chandra Prakash was arrested from whose house/godown 28 boxes of ammonium nitrate recovered – Such statement acceptable in evidence. ((Para 41, 48, 49)
       AIR 1963 SC 599; (1969) 3 SCC 429; AIR 1957 SC 637; (1975) 3 SCC 742; AIR 2011 SC 3753; (1997) 11 SCC 720; (1988) 1 SCC 696; AIR 1968 SC 832; AIR 1961 SC 1762; (2006) 7 SCC 442; (1988) 1 SCC 633 – Relied upon
       AIR 1960 SC 961; (1972) 3 SCC 511; (1973) 3 SCC 805; (1988) 1 SCC 1– Referred
       (e) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 27 – Recovery and arrest of accused – Section 27 only requires that that the person leading to recovery must be an accused and he must be "in the custody of a police officer" – It is not essential that such an accused must be under formal arrest – Ammonium nitrate boxes recovered at the discloser and from the house of accused – He was also arrested the same day – Recovery admissible in evidence – No infirmity. (Para 51, 57)
       (2011) 13 SCC 621; (2010) 3 SCC 56; AIR 1960 SC 1125; (2004) 10 SCC 657; (2000) 6 SCC 269; (2010) 2 SCC 583; (2011) 6 SCC 396 – Relied upon
       (1978) 4 SCC 435; (2001) 9 SCC 362; AIR 1947 PC 67; AIR 1963 SC 1113; (1976) 1 SCC 828; (2010) 6 SCC 1 – Referred
       (f) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 27 – Live bomb recovered at discloser of the accused from the place identified by him – Such recovery admissible in evidence. (Para 58, 60, 61)
       (1979) 3 SCC 90; (2005) 7 SCC 714 – Relied upon
       (1972) 1 SCC 249 – Referred
       (g) Explosive Act, 1884 – Section 4(d) r/w Section 2, Explosive Substances Act, 1908 – Huge quantity of ammonium nitrate seized along with other items – Seized material sufficient for making bombs for explosion – Possession of these articles in such a large quantity by the accused can only be conscious possession. (Para 65)
       (h) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 211 – Charges framed – No prejudice caused to accused persons – Not infirmity. (Para 68)
       (2011) 9 SCC 234; (2003) 1 SCC 217; (2004) 5 SCC 334; (2009) 6 SCC 372; (2009) 12 SCC 546 – Relied upon
       (i) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 120B – Discussions and meetings of accused persons at Madarsa in village Farah – Purchase of ammonium nitrate and other items – Carrying of the boxes to the Madarsa – Participation of accused persons in chain of events – Cumulatively establish conspiracy. (Para 69, 73)
       (2008) 10 SCC 394; (2013) 1 SCC 613; 2013 (3) SCALE 565 – Relied upon
       (j) Foreigners Act, 1946 – Section 14 – accused a Pakistani national – Not having passport or visa – Not disputed in statement u/s 313 CrPC – Offences u/s 14 held proved. (Para 76)
       Facts of the case:
       On 26th January, 1996 a bomb blast occurred in SMS stadium Jaipur.
       On information from one of the accused apprehended, five more persons including the appellants were arrested from Agra and other places.
       Charge sheet was filed against Chandra Prakash, Abdul Mateen, Raies Beg and Abdul Hamid under Section 9B of the Explosive Act, 1884; Sections 3, 4, 5 r/w Section 6 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908; Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946; Section 3 of the Prevention of Damages to Public Properties Act, 1984 and under Sections 307, 118, 435 r/w 120B and 456 IPC.
       The trial court convicted all the accused persons and the High Court dismissed appeals thereagainst.
       Finding of the Court:
       Impugned judgment and conviction needs no interference.

Judgement Key Points

Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points regarding the case:

Sanction under Section 7 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908: The Supreme Court held that the power to grant sanction can be delegated to the District Collector. The District Collector granting sanction via a speaking order is valid, and the examination of the District Magistrate to prove his consent is not necessary. (!) (!) (!) (!)
Admissibility of Recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act: Formal arrest of the accused is not essential for recovery to be admissible under Section 27. It is sufficient that the person providing information is an accused and is "in the custody of a police officer." Recovery made at the disclosure of the accused from their house or godown is admissible in evidence. (!) (!) (!) (!)
Test Identification Parade (TIP): A delay of three weeks between the arrest and the Test Identification Parade does not render the parade invalid or affect the prosecution case, provided the accused are identified in court later. (!) (!) (!) (!)
Corroboration of Approver's Statement: While an approver's statement ordinarily needs corroboration in material particulars, the Court found that Pappu (the approver) implicated himself, did not make exculpatory statements, and spoke graphically about the involvement of all accused. The recovery of explosives from Chandra Prakash's possession corroborated the approver's statement. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
Definition of Explosive Substances: Ammonium nitrate, while not an explosive in itself, falls under the definition of "explosive substance" under Section 2 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, as it includes materials for making explosive substances. Possession of a huge quantity of ammonium nitrate along with other items (fuse wires, detonators, dynamite) constitutes conscious possession intended for making bombs. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
Framing of Charges: No prejudice is caused to the accused if charges are framed along with Section 6 of the 1908 Act even if independent specific charges under Sections 3, 4, and 5 are not separately framed, as long as the accused understands the scope of the trial. (!) (!) (!)
Criminal Conspiracy: Conspiracy can be inferred from circumstantial evidence, such as meetings at a Madarsa, purchase of ammonium nitrate, and carrying boxes to the Madarsa, even without direct evidence of an express agreement. (!) (!) (!) (!)
Offence under the Foreigners Act, 1946: The offence under Section 14 of the Foreigners Act was proved against Abdul Mateen, a Pakistani national, as he was found in India without a passport or visa, and he did not dispute his nationality or lack of documents in his statement under Section 313 CrPC. (!) (!) (!)

JUDGMENT

Dipak Misra, J. –

1. On 26th January, 1996, a day of celebration and conscientious remembrance of the "Red Letter Day" in the history of India because 26th January is the date in 1950, when our organic, inclusive, humane and compassionate Constitution came into existence being given by the people of this country to themselves and the nation has been obliged to jubilate remembering the said important day in our national history, for it chartered the path of many an emancipation and conferred on the people the highly cherished fundamental rights; about 8.30 a.m., there was a blast of explosive substances between Gate No.12 and Gate No. 13, towards the southern and eastern side of Sawai Man Singh Stadium Jaipur, where the State level function on Republic Day was going to be celebrated. Soon after the blast, Prahlad Singh, the Station House Officer, Police Station lodged an FIR about 9.30 a.m. which was registered as FIR No. 39/1996.

As per the FIR, when the blast took place, the people who had assembled were asked to leave the stadium so that there could be a check. During the check, it was found that due to the blast, a big size crater had come into existence at the scene of explosion. That apart, by the said explosion, the sand hopped upward and fell on the places meant for sitting in the stadium and also on the roof. The glasses of the windows of the pavilion near the explosion had broken into pieces. At the time when the explosion had occurred, only police personnel but no civilians were present in that part of the stadium.

The public at large, which was present inside the Stadium, was informed to leave the Stadium so that the check and security could be carried out. Due to the sound caused by the explosion, one Ramgopal Choudhary, an employee of the Public Works Department, who was passing nearby, had met with an injury on his ear for which he was immediately sent to the hospital. On the basis of the FIR, offences under Section 120-B read with Sections 307 and 427 IPC, under Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 and under Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 (for short "the 1908 Act") and also under Section 9B of the Explosive Act, 1884 (for brevity "the 1884 Act") were registered and the investigation commenced. Later on, the investigation of the case was transferred to C.I.D. (C.B.).

2. During the investigation, an anonymous letter in Urdu language dated 1st June, 1997 was sent to the Superintendent of Police, wherein some information was given which was alleged to have been gathered by the senders who described themselves as well wishers while they were in custody in the Central Jail, Jaipur, in respect of the bomb-blast that took place on 26th January, 1996 at the SMS Stadium, Jaipur. In that letter, the names of some persons, i.e., Raies Beg of Agra, Dr. Abdul Hamid of Firozabad and Pappu Puncturewala were mentioned. It was also mentioned that the ISI of Pakistan was behind the bomb-blast. On the basis of the said information, the investigating officer arrested five persons, namely, Abdul Hamid, Raies Beg, Abdul Mateen, Pappu @ Saleem and Chandra Prakash on various dates.

3. During the investigation, the investigating agency recovered a live time bomb from SMS Stadium and explosive items were recovered from Roopwas, District Bharatpur. In the course of the investigation, accused Pappu @ Saleem filed an application under Section 306 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for brevity "the Code") before the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 14.8.1997 who, by order dated 30.8.1997, authorized the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 6 to record the statement of the said accused under Section 164 of the Code and thereafter, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, by a reasoned order dated 20.9.1997, allowed the application. After carrying out the detailed investigation, the police laid the charge- sheet against the arrested accused persons, namely, Chandra Prakash, Abdul Mateen, Raies Beg and Abd

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2014 Supreme(SC) 419

IMPORTANT POINTSPower u/s 7 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 can be delegated to District Collector. Examination of the District Magistrate to prove his consent is not necessaryRecovery at the discloser of accused – formal arrest of the accused not essential.

Cases Referred (45)

IMPORTANT POINTS
Power u/s 7 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 can be delegated to District Collector. Examination of the District Magistrate to prove his consent is not necessary
Recovery at the discloser of accused – formal arrest of the accused not essential.